# Reaves v. Faulkner

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · March 23, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252648

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** March 23, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252648

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NO. 7:22-CV-040-FL

KATHY JUANITA REAVES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
ANGELA FAULKNER, FREDDIE )
WILLIAMSON, MICHAEL MIKE )
SMITH, BRENDA FAIRLEY-FEREBEE, )
HERMAN LOCKLEAR, DEMETRIA )
GRISSETT, ATKINS TREY MICHAEL, )
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ROBESON )
COUNTY, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ) ORDER
ROBESON COUNTY BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, CATHERINE TRUITT, )
ROY COOPER, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF )
NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH )
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC )
INSTRUCTION, NORTH CAROLINA )
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, and )
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)

This matter is before the court for review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint (DE 1-1, 12)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. entered
memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b), wherein it is recommended plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. (DE 11).
Plaintiff did not file objections to the M&R, and the time within which to make any objection has
expired. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling.
Upon careful review of the M&R, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Because no objections have been filed, the court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings anc
conclusions only for clear error, and need not give any explanation for adoptin the M&R. Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiffs claims where the statutes
under which she purports to sue do not provide a private right of action, she improperly attempts
to bring claims on behalf of others pro se, and she fails to state a claim. Upon careful review of
the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error.
The court therefore ADOPTS the recommendation of the recommendation of the
magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED, this the 23rd day of March, 2023.

United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252648. Public record. Not legal advice.